10 Objections to Particular Redemption Answered

I came across these objections a while ago. To be honest, they are easily answered. Feed back (as in any article) always appreciated.

If Christ Did Not Die for All Men, Then...

 # FIRST OBJECTION: There never was a possibility that all could be saved and hope was limited only to some:

MY ANSWER TO FIRST OBJECTION:  Assuming here that "all" means "all without exception" (for the word carries two meanings in the Bible) it is true to say that "There was never a possibility that all could be saved..." This is because the Bible never teaches that there is a possibility that all without exception could be saved. The non Calvinist objector here does not see his way to providing any Scriptural proof and this is largely because there is none to provide.  This fact is seen at once from the Old Testament where the saving grace of God was largely limited to those of the Jewish community. "You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." (Amos 3:2) For thousands of years, whole communities in the Gentile nations lived and died in their sins without a missionary and therefore without the possibility that they could be saved, unless God chose to send them a man of His choice to preach the gospel to them. Even today, there still places on this earth totally void of a gospel witness  - unreached tribes in the deepest jungles who have never yet heard the good news.

The second part of the objection is that "...hope was limited only to some" but even the objector himself (as Evangelical) limits the hope of being saved to those who are prepared to actually come and receive Christ as their Saviour. Otherwise, the sinner will remain "without Christ and ... having no hope" (Ephesians 2:12) Hope in the Bible has always been limited to the some.  This is exactly what the Calvinist in his broader description as an Evangelical maintains - no hope outside of Jesus Christ.

# SECOND OBJECTION: Obviously some cannot avoid damnation:

MY ANSWER TO SECOND OBJECTION: Any man who takes it upon himself to reject the gospel cannot avoid damnation. This alone is the where any damnation lies  - in the sinner's self determination to love and cling to his sin. They will not come to Him that they might have life (John 5:40) and therefore they bring damnation upon their own heads, being the author of their own destruction.

# THIRD OBJECTION: We must feel the insincerity of inviting all to be saved:

MY ANSWER TO THIRD OBJECTION: There is no insincerity at all  in inviting all to be saved, something which those who believe in Particular Redemption are wont to do. While we limit the intention of the atonement to what it will be finally seen to deliver i.e. the salvation of the elect , yet we do not limit in any way the intrinsic worth or merit of this atonement. We are happy therefore to run with the maxim that "Christ suffered sufficiently for the whole world, but efficiently only for the elect." saying with John Calvin: "This solution has commonly prevailed in the schools...I allow that what has been said is true..." It was this truth of the infinite worth of the atonement that enabled Spurgeon to say: "I know there are some who think it necessary to their system of theology to limit the merit of the blood of Jesus: if my theological system needed such limitation, I would cast it to the winds. I cannot, I dare not, allow the thought to find lodging in my mind, it seems so near akin to blasphemy." (Autobiography of  Spurgeon) and yet have him also declare: "I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than an universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it. "(4:121) The strength of the free-for-all invitation lies, not in the intention, but in the merit or worth and so the Calvinist can go on evangelising bidding men to look and live and rebuking and warning those who refuse to do so. 

# FOURTH OBJECTION: Unbelief is no longer a sin, especially for those who have no cross to believe on.

MY ANSWER TO FOURTH OBJECTION: The sinner is being asked to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:30-31) and the invitation that He extends to sinners. No man is being asked to believe if he is elect, but  he is being simply asked to take the sinner's place and to apply for pardon in accordance with the gospel promise which is for every creature. As McCheyne put it well so long ago: "The question is not, 'Am I elect?' but rather, 'Am I one of the human race?'" (Sermon on Proverbs 8:4) A sinner may read the gospel invitation, especially as it is addressed to the "whosoever" (Romans 10:13) and conclude that such includes him in its scope. This is a wide enough matter and so leaves the sinner without any justifiable feeling of hopelessness.

# FIFTH OBJECTION: It would be a sin for those for whom Christ did not die to believe on Him, because they would be believing a lie, a false hope:

MY ANSWER TO FIFTH OBJECTION: If the gospel invitation was limited to the elect, then these words would be pertinent words, but the free offer of the gospel (which is to be extended to every last sinner) renders the objection null and void.

# SIXTH OBJECTION: Those who preach the gospel to every creature SIN because they preach good tidings to all men when in fact there aren't good tidings for all men in the cross:

MY ANSWER TO SIXTH OBJECTION: This is an unjust charge. It is unjust because the gospel invitation is based on two things [i] The worth of the merit of Christ's work which is infinite and [ii] the commanded width of the invitation which is to the whosoever, as elucidated in the previous answer. This being so, it is no sin to preach the gospel to every creature as commanded in Mark 16:15. No living man has any right to conclude that Christ did not die for Him. If he does so, it will not be in a Calvinistic induced despair, but simply because he views it as another excuse to hold on to his sins.

# SEVENTH OBJECTION: God would be insincere in commanding all men to repent, seeing if they did repent, they'd have no provision in the cross:

MY ANSWER TO SEVENTH OBJECTION: This objection is erroneous again on two accounts. [i] It assumes that repentance is required only to facilitate the reception of Christ. Even if there was no salvation for anyone, we would still be required to repent and forsake our rebellion against God. We would still be required to believe everything which God said. [ii] It assumes that you have men repenting but coming to the Cross and God turning them away. There is no record of anyone coming in repentance and faith to the Cross and being turned away and Calvinists do not believe nor teach that such happens. This is the figment of an over zealous imagination on the part of those who oppose the Doctrines of Grace (or to be more precise) what they perceive those same Doctrines to teach.  Both repentance and faith are saving gifts from God and they are given specifically to His elect so that they will come to the Cross and be saved.

# EIGHTH OBJECTION: Why does He say He's not willing that any should perish?

MY ANSWER TO EIGHTH OBJECTION: God's unwillingness that any should perish stems from that part of His character that is benevolent and loving etc., He is not a cruel despot, taking delight in the sufferings of His creatures for the sheer fun of hearing their screams and anguish. Yet He willingly allowed sin to enter into the world and based salvation on the necessary reception of Christ, when He might have easily avoided the first and thus rendered the second unnecessary. It is sufficient for the sinner to read words like 2 Peter 3:9, look at the invitation of the gospel and conclude that there is hope for him if he will but come and believe etc.,

# NINTH OBJECTION: All for whom He did not die come into the world with the irrevocable sentence of damnation upon them:

MY ANSWER TO NINTH OBJECTION: This is just the first objection rehashed. See the answer given there.

# TENTH OBJECTION:  Why should the Devil do anything, seeing God will hand over to him the largest portion of humanity without his lifting a finger?

MY ANSWER TO TENTH OBJECTION: This objection again lays undue emphasis and weight on God handing over the largest portion of humanity (assuming that the largest portion of humanity will be lost) to the Devil. The sinner effectively hands himself over to the Devil by his constant sinning and rejecting of the overtures of grace. The question also presupposes that if the Devil did nothing then all men would run to the Cross and be saved. This ignores the innate wickedness and depravity of the sinner's heart. The Bible makes it clear that [i] all men will not be saved and that [ii] a certain number will be converted through the preaching of the gospel. Even non Calvinists (of the Old School Evangelicalism) believe this. God had a purpose in creating the Devil in the first place - creating him with the full knowledge that he would turn malignant and create havoc in the world. Yet He wisely decided that this should be the course. In a future day, we will fully understand the whys and the wherefores of these things.

Helpful sermon by CH Spurgeon entitled "Particular Redemption" 

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* 1 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Ryrie

It must be said that Ryrie is not my first port of call when it comes to theology. I am more likely to stretch for the systematic theologies of Dabney or any one of a number of Reformed theologians in my study than for Ryrie. But still, he may give another insight into those things where the Reformed men speak with one voice and when to read one is to effectively read them all. This encouraged me to buy the book.

Having said that, with all his Dispensationalism and other no-no stuff (generally speaking) for Reformed Christians, Ryrie does go all Calvinistic on us in some areas. Well, at least on the sovereignty of God and particularly in his affirmation of the doctrine of UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION.

I have been amazed to read the claim that Ryrie had no Calvinistic leanings.  This is not so, as the following evidence proves. Note: No one is claiming here that Ryrie is a five point Calvinist. He argues with the usual arguments against the doctrine of Particular Redemption, but at least on the doctrine of UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION (and think of the often blasphemous abuse which Calvinists take over this doctrine) Ryrie is as thoroughly Calvinistic as any of us. I quote some of what he has written:

SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD: 

"Ultimately God is in control of all things, though He may choose to let certain events happen according to natural laws which He has ordained."

"God has a plan (Acts 15:18) which is all inclusive (Eph. 1.11) which He controls (Ps. 135:6), which includes but does not involve Him in evil (Pro. 16:4) and which is ultimately to the praise of His glory (Eph. 1:14)."

"The problem: The sovereignty of God seems to contradict the freedom or actually responsibility of man. But even though it may seem to do so, the perfection of sovereignty is clearly taught in the Scriptures, so it must not be denied because of our inability to reconcile it with freedom or responsibility. Also, if God is sovereign, how can the creation be so filled with evil? Man was created with genuine freedom, but the exercise of that freedom in rebellion against God introduced sin into the human race. Though God was the Designer of the plan, He was in no way involved in the commission of evil either on the part of Satan originally or of Adam subsequently. Even though God hates sin, for reasons not revealed to us, sin is present by His permission. Sin must be within God's eternal plan (or God would not be sovereign) in some way which He is not the author of it (or God could not be holy.)" 

THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION:

"Direct terminology: 1. Election. Election emphasises God's free choice of individuals to salvation (the election of Christ, Israel or angels are not under consideration here.) When Paul uses the verb, he uses it in the middle voice, indicating that God's choice was made freely and for His own purposes (1 Cor. 1:27-28; Eph. 1:4). Individual Thessalonians were chosen (2 Thess. 2:13); as many were set (previous to their believing) in the group of those who would have eternal life did believe (Acts 13:48); Paul was a chosen instrument (for salvation and service, Acts 9:15, Gal. 1:15)and some individuals names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8; 17:8) which must mean some were. Election is unconditional and individual."

2. To predestine is to preplan a destiny. The word prooizo means to mark off beforehand. The death of Christ and its meaning were predestined by God (Acts 4:28; 1 Cor. 2:7) God's elect are predestined to adoption (Eph. 1:5), to an inheritance (v11), and to ultimate conformity to Christ (Rom. 8:28-29).

Biblically, predestination is limited to the elect people and assures their present position and future destiny. Theologically, the term has been used to include all things, that is, as a synonym for the total plan of God. From this theological definition, it is an easy step for some forms of Calvinism to use predestination in relation to the destiny of the non elect. Thus there arises a doctrine of double predestination. However, this is a logical assumption, not based on Biblical texts. The Bible is clear that the elect are predestined, but it never suggests that there is a similar decree to elect some to damnation. The Scriptures seem content to leave that matter as a mystery, and so should we." 

3. Foreknowledge. The word proginosko is used (a) of prior, temporal knowledge (Acts 26:5; 2 Pet 3:17); (b) of God's relation to Israel (Rom. 11:2) (c) of Christ's sacrifice (Acts 2:23; 1 Pet 1:20); and (d) of God's people today (Rom. 8:29; 1 Pet. 1:2) 

The debate centres round the question of how much relationship exists in the word 'foreknowledge.' Does it mean merely that God foreknows in the sense of foreseeing without any relationship? Or, as Calvinism holds, does it mean that He related Himself to people before time in some way so that there is a causative connection that makes foreknow practically equivalent to predestine or foreordain? Clearly people are foreknown, not their faith (Rom. 8:28-29) Clearly too, foreknowledge as a mere perception is not the basis of election, for 1 Peter 1:2 includes a decision on God's part. Election is in harmony (kata) with foreknowledge and that foreknowledge included a procedure used in working out the choice. Therefore, there is some relationship and/or decision inherent in the meaning of foreknow. Certainly verse 20 includes those ideas or it would assure nothing about the sacrifice of Christ. Likewise there is decisiveness and certainty in Acts 2:23 and Romans 11:2. An  apocrypha use of the word also includes certainty: 'And Thy judgements are in Thy foreknowledge" (Judith 9:6). To be sure, the word does not say 'elect,' but neither can it be reduced to a neutral concept of perception only. It does include decision that in turn hasto involve an assurance that comes from certainty.

C. Opposite Terminology, By this I mean the ideas involved in retribution and preterition. Retribution means deserved punishment, while preterition is the passing over of those not elected to salvation. Both terms avoid the concept involved in double predestination or reprobation, which means foreordination to damnation. None of these terms appear in the Scripture, though the idea is clearly taught in Romans 9:18,21; 1 Peter 2:8; and Revelation 17:8. Therefore, the Scriptures do contain a doctrine of preterition, though there is not a decree to condemn in the same sense that there is a decree to elect. Obviously the very idea of election has to include the idea of a greater number out of which they were chosen, and those who were not chosen were certainly passed by.

This in no sense implies that God delights in the destiny of the wicked, or that they are driven against their wills, or that the doctrine of election nullifies a 'whosoever will' Gospel, or that any individual can know that he is not elect and thereby try to excuse himself from rejecting Christ. All are accountable to God for their attitude towards Christ."

Mr Ryrie under the heading: III THE DOCTRINE SUMMARIZED goes over the ground thus covered above, reducing it to a number of shorter sentences e.g. Election is individual and not based on foresight etc. An interesting and entirely accurate (and Calvinist) application of the doctrine lies in the statement: "Election Alone Does Not Result In The Salvation Of People" 

The key word is the word "alone" because Mr Ryrie, having correctly taught the unconditional election of individuals unto salvation, assures us in his opening words:

 "To be sure, election assures that those chosen will be saved..." 

Again, the word "alone" is absolutely correct because it took the death of the Christ and the evangelisation of the sinner and the faith of the sinner to bring about the salvation that was thus guaranteed by the sovereign and unconditional election of God. This is all good stuff. This Calvinist i.e. me certainly is being blessed as he prepares this article for your consumption. 

In IV OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION, Mr Ryrie articulates several Calvinist responses to those hoary old objections that have signally failed over the centuries. He answers the objection that it equates to fatalism, because fatalism is blind chance whereas  election flows from an intelligent, loving Being. Fatalism has no use of means, whereas the decree of God includes the means to its fulfilment and so embraces human responsibility. He comments that Ephesians 1:11 "spotlights all things, not solely ends." 

He also answers the objection that the doctrine of election is inconsistent with human freedom. He does so by reminding man that he is created as a responsible being and ought to do those things consistent with this truth. By illustration, he covers the thought that the day of our death is ordained of God (but we still eat to stay alive) and that God planned to answer our prayers, so we still pray. He then moves into the area of salvation again. Here is naked Calvinism (at least in this fundamental part) comes to the fore. 

"Or again, Does God know who are the elect? Of course, He elected them. Can any of them be lost? no. Then why pray and witness? Because this is how they will be saved. Will any of them fail to believe? No. Why then do they have to believe? Because that is the only way they can be saved, and unless they do believe, they will  not be saved..." 

He continually cautions against asking theoretical and useless questions, urging us instead of to concentrate on doing what is God's will [my note: as revealed in the Scriptures] and to act responsibly.

Another serious objection to the doctrine of election is answered i.e. that it makes God the author of sin.

"I think we must acknowledge that God did construct a plan that included sin, and that it's inclusion did not come as a surprise. Yet we must guard the clear teaching of Scripture that God hates sin (Ps. 5:5), that He is never responsible for our committing sin (James 1:13), and that including sin in His plan does not make it somehow less sinful and us less culpable."  

Stating that Proverbs 16:4 "teaches also that all things are included in God's plan" Mr Ryrie acknowledges some unresolved tensions in the Bible on this matter and rightly urges us to seek a balance. 

Nine pages on, Mr Ryrie draws his observation to a close:

"Finally, face their ramification of all things not being included in one way of another in God's plan. This would mean that there are things outside of His control, and that is a frightening idea." 


The conclusion of the chapter is most interesting here. At least from a Calvinist point of view. Mr Ryries theological work is used in many places where John Calvin's name and views are little less than a "cuss word" (to quote my old friend #Wylie). However, the learned writer evidently knows nothing of such vilification and quotes extensively from Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion Book 1 Chapter 17 paragraph 10 which (to save time and space may be perused here) 

Having urged the reader to "Listen to these words of John Calvin:" Mr Ryrie urges the further enlightened reader on to an act of devotion, using the words of Paul in Romans 11:33-36:

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

This article proved to be a bit lengthy (Nine pages in the original book ) but I have consciously given a faithful precis of its contents. It must be said, again, that though I radically disagree with Mr Ryrie on some other matters, yet on this matter of UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION and its ramifications, I am in basic agreement.

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Mary King

 

Encourage young believers 

I don’t suppose the name of Mary King will mean a lot to you. She is described as a “big sturdy woman” who worked in John Swindell’s  school in Newmark in Suffolk

in the mid 19^th century. She was known to all who worked there simply as “cook” and might have died in poverty later on, except for the charity of one who had been a shy young usher in the school. This young usher had been under deep conviction of sin and Mary helped and impressed him greatly.

Mary was a fond reader of The Gospel Standard magazine, edited by JC Philpott and read by the stronger Calvinists within the Strict and Particular Baptist denomination. (So called because they were strict in who could partake of communion and particular in their views of the purpose and extent of the Atonement.) Being unable to find a church suited to her theology, she attended a somewhat liberal chapel where (she said) she had to scratch like an old hen in a pile of rubbish looking for corn. However, she claimed to have found this mental challenge and exercise to be of spiritual value to her because it exercised her spiritual faculties and therefore warmed her spirit.

The young usher who benefitted so much from her help was CH Spurgeon. He mentioned her with evident fondness on several occasions from the pulpit in later years. “She liked something very sweet indeed, good strong Calvinistic doctrine; but she lived strongly as well as fed strongly. Many a time we have gone over the covenant of grace together, and talked of the personal election of the saints, their union to Christ, their final perseverance, and what vital godliness meant; and I do believe that I learnt more from her than I should have learned from any six doctors of divinity of the sort we have nowadays.”

The final link in the chain in Spurgeon’s conversion was an old (and unknown) Arminian preacher in a well-known scenario often referred to when preachers expound Isaiah 45:22 (“Look unto me and be ye saved…”). However, the ground (under God) had been well prepared by this godly lady. From a human point of view, Spurgeon’s ministry could well have been rooted in Arminian/Wesleyan doctrine. However, God decreed otherwise. The seeds which Mary King sowed in her heart-to-heart chats with the young man led not only to his conversion, but his Calvinist ministry.  

The Gospel Standard ministry was a Hyper Calvinist one – denying the free offer of the gospel and the sinner’s duty to both repent and believe the gospel. Many Hyper Calvinists gave the young pastor a hard time when he preached both his Calvinist soteriology (all 5 points) and the free offer etc. They called him a mongrel Calvinist. However, Spurgeon made more of an impact for the teaching of sovereign grace than they ever would. He did not trim the doctrines – he would later complain about those who were Calvinist in the study but Arminian in the pulpit – but he possessed the great gift of making them accessible to the minds of his hearers. Perhaps he remembered his own struggle with them and the gospel in general as a young usher and the little known but kindly lady who evidently had the gift of simple communication. Every benefactor of Spurgeon’s ministry (under God) stands in her debt. 

 * CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

And if a sparrow

And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome.  And when it was day, certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul. And they were more than forty which had made this conspiracy.  And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul.  Now therefore ye with the council signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you to morrow, as though ye would enquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him. And when Paul's sister's son heard of their lying in wait, he went and entered into the castle, and told Paul. Then Paul called one of the centurions unto him, and said, Bring this young man unto the chief captain: for he hath a certain thing to tell him. So he took him, and brought him to the chief captain, and said, Paul the prisoner called me unto him, and prayed me to bring this young man unto thee, who hath something to say unto thee. Then the chief captain took him by the hand, and went with him aside privately, and asked him, What is that thou hast to tell me? And he said, The Jews have agreed to desire thee that thou wouldest bring down Paul to morrow into the council, as though they would enquire somewhat of him more perfectly. But do not thou yield unto them: for there lie in wait for him of them more than forty men, which have bound themselves with an oath, that they will neither eat nor drink till they have killed him: and now are they ready, looking for a promise from thee. So the chief captain then let the young man depart, and charged him, See thou tell no man that thou hast shewed these things to me. And he called unto him two centurions, saying, Make ready two hundred soldiers to go to Caesarea, and horsemen threescore and ten, and spearmen two hundred, at the third hour of the night; And provide them beasts, that they may set Paul on, and bring him safe unto Felix the governor. (Acts 23:11-24)

Q. What was the will of God concerning Paul at this time?
A. That he was not to  fear because he was to bear witness for God at Rome.
Q. Did God fulfil His will?
A. Ultimately, He did.
Q. Did any try to interfere with the will of God in this matter?
A. Yes – 40 men took a vow that they would not eat until they had killed Paul.
Q. How did they hope to achieve this?
A. By having the Jews ask the chief captain to produce the prisoner under the pretence of questioning him further and thus leaving him exposed to the danger.
Q. Was this desire of these cut throats wicked?
A. Yes.
Q. Wherein?
A. Because they sought to murder Paul through lying means and had they did so, then they would frustrated the righteous decree of God that he would bear witness at Rome.
Q. Was their opposition in this matter pre-ordained of God?
A.  Yes.
Q. Why would God ordain such an event as this?
A. For a number of reasons, not least, to show the lengths wicked sinners who oppose the gospel will go. Again, to show that His will is invincible and that He can deliver His people in the most extreme circumstances through the use both of weak and strong means.
Q. Did God put it in the heart of these wicked to so plan this murder?
A. It would be much more accurate to say that He drew it out of their wicked heart (wherein all evil thoughts originate) and made good use of it for His own glory.
Q. How did He achieve this?
A. By hardening their heart to give vent to such wickedness.
Q. How would God have so hardened their heart?
A. By withdrawing His restraining grace from them through which they had ceased to have been (up to that point) a danger both to themselves and others.
Q. Does this not mean that God authored their crime or was implicit in it?
A. No. The use of the word ‘grace’ indicates that He is under no obligation to bestow it and at perfect liberty to withdraw it as He sees fit. The guilt of the crime belongs solely to those perpetrated it i.e. the gang of cut throats. 

Q. Did God tempt them to sin at this time by so withdrawing this restraining grace?

A. No, God cannot be tempted. Neither does He tempt any man. (James 1:13)
Q. Did God control or direct their wickedness at this time?
A. Only in the sense that He restrained it from going further than it suited His own holy ends.
Q. Did God influence other hearts in this whole dramatic episode?
A. Yes. He positively influenced and enabled Paul’s nephew and the captain for good i.e. to see that Paul would remain unharmed.
Q. How did he do this?
A. By giving them courage and wisdom to thwart the plans of the wicked.
Q. Did this involve any operation of God upon their hearts?
A. Yes. He increased the grace already given by removing any fear or discouragement that probably would have existed in the circumstances. Removing it at least to the point where they decided to take positive action to save the prisoner.
Q. Did God at any time so control the wills either of the wicked or the good in this operation that it could be said that they were mere puppets?
A. No. Working in the will and influencing it does not rob either the wicked or good of their liberty to follow the dictates of their heart.
Q. To whom does any blame belong in this passage?
A. Solely to the wicked whose evil hearts moved them to willingly engage in the above crime.
Q. To whom is any praise due in the above scene?
A. Ultimately to God, who so wisely and justly arranged the circumstances that enabled Paul to escape the plans of wicked men.
Q. Is any credit due to Paul’s nephew and the chief captain?
A. Under God, there is in that they were faithful, as free moral agents, to their God given duty to seek means to preserve life.
Q. Any last words on this subject?
A. Yes. Any argument against Calvinism that ignores or seeks to tamper with the Calvinist fundamental of the freedom of man’s will (i.e. to follow the  dictates of his own heart) is based either on ignorance or (worse again) mischief and doomed to wallow in its own failure.

 * CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX
* YOUTUBE VIDEO INDEX
* 3 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX

Stearns

 

THE CALVINISM OF SHUBAL STEARNS AND THE SANDY CREEK ASSOCIATION

Some names in Church history are better known than others. I am more familiar with the names of Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield or Gilbert Tennant than with the name of Shubal Stearns. I must confess that I find it somewhat ironic that my first contact with his revered name came through some who constantly and viciously attack Calvinists as purveyors of damnable heresy and the doctrines of devils straight from the pit of hell etc., while lauding this Calvinist preacher as a great Revival preacher. Anyway, God makes all things work together for good for His people (Romans 8:28) and here is the fruit of my research into this great Calvinist pioneer.

(BTW: Shubal Stearns was a Baptist preacher too. With all due respects to my Baptist friends, I do not normally attach any great importance to the denominational associations of the great preachers. This may be seen at once when you run your eye back over the first line of this article where the names of a Congregationalist, Anglican and Presbyterian are mentioned without reference to their respective backgrounds. I would contend that I, as a Presbyterian Calvinist have more in common with Stearns than any of the “Calvinism is heresy” type Baptists who wouldn’t let Stearns within 10 miles of their pulpit if he was alive today.

 * Shubal Stearns was converted, under God, through the evangelist preaching of Calvinist preacher, George Whitefield in 1745. Obviously this does not automatically make Stearns a Calvinist, but he certainly saw warm, evangelistic Calvinism in action and the rich blessing of God resting upon it. Unlike that of Whitefield, there are no written sermons of Stearns extant. However, it is significant that, like his father in the faith, he was noted as insisting regularly on the necessity of the New Birth to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

* In 1758, Stearns set up the Sandy Creek Association with other men of like faith. Unfortunately, the SCA did not issue a formal Confession of Faith until 1816, long after Stearns was dead. This was partly because they were not originally noted for their adherence to any form. (They seemed to be somewhat "laid back" as they say in these parts. ) An example of such informality can be seen in the fact that their Association had no formal moderator for a number of years. Even their 1816 Confession lacks the depth of the earlier 1689 London Confession of Faith and the 1742 Philadelphia Confession, but is modelled on the 'one liner' type statements of the Mississippi Baptist Association Articles of Faith from 10 years earlier. As will be seen, the 1816 Confession is distinctly Calvinist in its belief, especially lines numbered III and IV:

Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association 

I. We believe that there is only one true and living God; the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, equal in essence, power and glory; and yet there are not three Gods but one God.

II. That Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the word of God, and only rule of faith and practice.

III. That Adam fell from his original state of purity, and that his sin is imputed to his posterity; that human nature is corrupt, and that man, of his own free will and ability, is impotent to regain the state in which he was primarily placed.

IV. We believe in election from eternity, effectual calling by the Holy Spirit of God, and justification in his sight only by the imputation of Christ's righteousness. And we believe that they who are thus elected, effectually called, and justified, will persevere through grace to the end, that none of them be lost.

V. We believe that there will be a resurrection from the dead, and a general or universal judgment, and that the happiness of the righteous and punishment of the wicked will be eternal.

VI. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful persons, who have obtained fellowship with each other, and have given themselves up to the Lord and one another; having agreed to keep up a godly discipline, according to the rules of the Gospel.

VII. That Jesus Christ is the great head of the church, and that the government thereof is with the body.

VIII. That baptism and the Lord's Supper are ordinances of the Lord, and to be continued by his church until his second coming.

IX. That true believers are the only fit subjects of baptism;, and that immersion is the only mode.

X. That the church has no right to admit any but regular baptized church members to communion at the Lord's table.
 

* While it is true that the SCA had some issues with another Calvinistic body, (Particular Baptists) the issue was not over doctrine, but some of the CSA practices. In 1758, the body in question (Philadelphia Association) sent a respected and trustworthy investigator (John Gano) who complained that the CSA was "rather immethodical." Some of these practices included the ordaining of female elders and deaconesses and a toleration of "dancing in the Spirit" on the basis that "there was a genuine work of grace among the people." While he ruefully noted these somewhat disconcerting matters, the investigator concluded that "the root of the matter was in them" thus judging favourtably both their professed conversion to Christ and soundness of theology. It is inconceivable that such a detailed report from Gano would omit to mention any major differences in doctrine, especially on those doctrines commonly called Calvinism. Gano's report did much to strengthen the relationship between the two bodies which again indicates basic agreement on the Doctrines of Grace. This was not the first time that Stearns and the Calvinists round him had come under the scutiny of the Calvinists of the Philadelphia Association. The said Association in 1752 considered a query "Whether a person denyng unconditional election, the doctrine of original sin, and the final perseverance of the saints, and striving to affect as many as he can, may have full communion with the church?" and concluded that they could not. They were very firm about the matter. I quote:

"Upon which fundamental doctrines of Christianity, next to the belief of an eternal God, our faith must rest; and we adopt, and would that all the churches belonging to the Baptist Association, be well grounded in accordance to our Confession of faith and catechism, and cannot allow that any are true members of our churches who deny the said principles, be their conversation outward what it will."
 
With these sentiments in mind, the PA sent an Evangelist called Benjamin Millar to investigate the scene at Opekon where Stearns worked along with his brother-in-law, Daniel Marshall. This was because some complaints had been received. Benjamin Millar was suitably impressed and spoke highly of the spiritual state of the people. So much so, that in 1754, only two years after the Calvinist query had been raised in the Association, the church at Opekon (and also at Ketocton) was received into the Philadelphia Association. This would not have been if they could not have honestly subscribed to the Philadelpia Confession of Faith with its statements on the key Calvinistic doctrines of unconditional election, the doctrine of original sin, and the final perseverance of the saints.



So Shubal Stearns and the Sandy Creek men were almost certainly Calvinists. Like Whitefield before them and others like Edwards, they nail the lie that Calvinism kills both evangelism and Revival.  This is not so and it need not be so. Calvinism DEMANDS evangelistic endeavour. Contrary to the unwarranted attacks made upon Calvinism, we do NOT believe that God will save His elect, no matter what. We believe that God gathers in His decreed elect through the means of evangelism. This is why Calvinists evangelise. John Calvin himself was a great evangelist and encouraged others to be so as well.   


Additional information:

* The Baptist Encyclopedia gives details of one of Shubal Stearns converts. One name that crops up is that of Rev. Murphy William. It says of him that he was...

"Rev. Murphy William was led to the Saviour and baptized by the celebrated Shubal Stearns. Mr Murphy had not only a sound Christian experience, but his doctrine was that of Calvin, Augustine and Paul. ... In the year 1775 when the churches were agitated by the Arminian controversy, Mr Murphy with great ability defended sovereign and efficacious  grace." (p825)

 

Resisting Grace

 

JOHN CALVIN ON THE NATURAL ABILITY OF SINNERS TO RESIST 

THE GRACE OF GOD:

 

While it is true that the elect of God will not ultimately resist the grace of God (being in God's appointed time drawn graciously by the power of God) yet it is also true that the reprobate, because they will always love darkness rather than light, will choose to do so. Calvin rightly believed that sinners could and do resist the grace of God. 

"And those are said to resist the Spirit who reject him when he speaketh in the prophets. Neither doth he speak in this place of secret revelations, wherewith God inspireth every one, but of the external ministry; which we must note diligently. He purposeth to take from the Jews all color of excuse; and, therefore, he upbraideth unto them, that they had purposely, and not of ignorance, resisted God. Whereby it appeareth what great account the Lord maketh of his word, and how reverently he will have us to receive the same. Therefore, lest, like giants, we make war against God, let us learn to hearken to the ministers by whose mouth he teacheth us." (Comments on Acts 7:51)

"When he [Christ] says, Yet a little while, he warns them that God will not long endure that his grace should be exposed to such shameful contempt." (John 8:33)

"Meanwhile we see how all who swelled with false confidence, flatter themselves on their condition and drive away from them the grace of Christ." (John 8:33)   

"They choose rather to be deprived of the salvation which is offered to them, than to endure any longer the presence of Christ." (Mark 5:15) "And groaning in his spirit. By these words Mark informs us that it occasioned grief and bitter vexation to our Lord, when he saw those ungrateful men obstinately resist God." (Mark 8:12)

"This relates therefore to the regenerate, over whom Christ reigns; for, although all are called by the voice of the gospel, yet there are few who suffer themselves to be placed under his yoke." (Isaiah 32:8) 

"And we may learn from this passage, that when men perish, God still continues like himself, and that neither his power, by which he is mighty to save the world, is extinguished, nor his purpose changed, so as not to be always ready to help; but that the obstinacy of men rejects the grace which has been provided, and which God willingly and bountifully offers. This is one thing. We may secondly learn, that the power of God is not to be measured by our rule: were we lost a hundred times, let God be still regarded as a Saviour." (Hosea 13:14)

"And this was the case, because the irreclaimable wickedness of the people did not allow God to change his severity into mildness, so as to give any hope of pardon and salvation." (Hosea 13:14)

SIMILAR QUOTES FROM SOME OTHER CALVINISTS:
 

MATTHEW HENRY: "They, like their fathers, were not only not influenced by the methods God took to reform them, but they were enraged and incensed against them: 'You do always resist the Holy Ghost' 1. They resisted the Holy Ghost speaking to them by the prophets, whom they opposed and contradicted, hated and ridicule; this seems especially meant here by the following, 'Which of the prophets etc., In persecuting and silencing those that spake by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost they resisted the Holy Ghost…They resisted the Holy Ghost striving with them by their own consciences, and would not comply with the convictions and dictates of them. God's Spirit strove with them as with the old world, but in vain; they resisted him, took part with their corruptions against their conviction, and rebelled against the light." (Commentary on Acts 7:51)

A.W. PINK: [i] "When any part of God's revealed will is made known to men, they endeavour to banish it from their thoughts. They do not like to retain God in their thoughts (Romans 1:28) therefore they resist the strivings of the Spirit for obedient compliance."  

[ii] "Consequently, man's war against God is a double one: defensive and offensive. Defensively, he slights God's Word, perverts His gifts, resists the overtures of his Spirit (Acts 7:51)"  

[iii] "A lifeless body has no responsibility, but a spiritually dead soul is accountable to God. A corpse in a cemetery will not 'despise and reject' Christ (Isaiah 53:3) will not 'resist the Holy Ghost' (Acts 7:51), will not disobey the gospel (2 Thessalonians 1:8); but the sinner can and does do these very things and is justly condemned for them." 

[iv] "Not only do men refuse to employ the means which God has appointed but they scorn His help by fighting against illumination and conviction…'Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost.' (Acts 7:51)  All four quotes from Pink's book:  "Man's Total Depravity" 

INDEXES:

* CALVINIST INDEX
* PROTESTANT INDEX
* CH SPURGEON INDEX
* EVANGELISM INDEX
* HERE AND THERE INDEX

Gospel Fulness in Calvinist Doctrine

 THE GOSPEL IN ITS FULLNESS IN THE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINES OF GRACE

Note: Using the term Calvinistic doctrine here to distinguish it from other interpretations of the Bible. I believe that these Calvinist doctrines are drawn from and agreeable to the word of God, but in polemics, it helps to further clarify your position by the use of labels.  I also recognise that there are those who may argue against these doctrines, but who effectively put them into action when they pray or evangelise.  

Doctrine:	Why this doctrine is full of the gospel
Total Depravity	While there is obviously no good news in the fact that the depravity of sinners reaches to every part of their being (hence total) yet by correctly diagnosing the situation as truly hopeless, it is easier to establish the great truth that salvation can only be by the grace and power of God alone without the impute of man. By contrast, those who believe that man has the last say or the deciding vote on salvation that is basically more effective than that either of God and Satan give the sinner the pretence of a power he does not possess. The seeds of religious humanism are truly sown where the Calvinistic doctrine of total depravity are not embraced.
Unconditional Election	Unconditional meaning that the reason for choosing some to one but not another lies not within the sinner himself i.e. foreseen faith or good works but within God Himself. No sinner deserves salvation and God could have justly left us all in our sins to perish and still have retained His glory undiminished. The blunt reality is that if God did not elect sinners to salvation, but merely offered it to them, then none of them would either want it or receive it.   The problem with the conditional election folk is that have turned faith from being the channel of salvation to a major contributing cause. The sinner then becomes the bottom line with the last say in who will be saved.   No unconverted sinner on this earth can either profess himself to be elect or non elect, as such things in this circumstance are known only to God. This truth negates several arguments that assume that the non elect may know that he is so.
Particular Redemption	This teaches that Christ only atoned for the sins of His elect people and that the sacrifice of Christ, not merely provided salvation, but actually secured it for His elect. It is therefore a 100% successful work, accomplishing everything it set out to do. Christ therefore can see the travail of His soul and be truly satisfied. Spurgeon observed that the redemptive work of Christ needs to stand in its own right without needing the will of man to empower it. This is true.   Just as “God’s word is true. I believe it and that settles it” would better read: “God’s word is true. That settles it. I believe it” so likewise, the objective truth of the atonement is not settled by our believing, but we believe because it is already settled. So, it is not “Christ died for ours sins. I believe it. That settles it” but rather, “Christ died for our sins. That settles it. I believe it.” The objective does not need to subjective to give it weight. It is a stand alone truth. As such, we are commanded to believe it. In the other scenario, where Christ bore away the sins of people actually in Hell in AD33 (and who would never be saved) and those whom He knew would be in Hell, you effectively have a failed atonement. If God set out to save every last sinner, then He has signally failed in what (to quote Dabney) must be the greatest failure in history. The other scenario has people in Hell suffering for sins when the guilt of that sin – they say – was actually borne away by Christ on the Cross. That is unjust. Lest I be misunderstood, no Calvinist worth his salt limits the worth or the merit of Christ’s atonement. The old Calvinist maxim is “Sufficient for all men, efficient only for the elect.”
Effectual Calling	This is when God gives the spiritually dead sinner the needed grace to actually forsake his sins and come to Christ. It is effectual because it successfully accomplishes what it set out to actually do i.e. bring the elect sinner in repentance and faith to Christ. The will of the elect sinner, previously bound by sin and Satan, has been renewed in regeneration and he freely comes of his own freed will to Christ. It is simply the outworking of the decreed unconditional election in time. That other sinners – and even elect sinners to a certain point – can resist the proffered salvation of God is firmly believed by Calvinists, both in Scripture and by sad experience, both personally and in evangelism. Calvinist commentaries on relevant verses (Acts 7 etc.) will bear this out. The alternative view that denies effectual calling again leaves the evangelist with no sure hope of success in his gospel preaching. We sow the good seed knowing (not merely hoping) that it will accomplish the will of God. BTW: If you are praying for God to actually save your love ones etc., then your argument is based on the truth of the effectual call of God. We are all Calvinists on our knees, no matter what silly things some may argue on Twitter etc.
Perseverance of the Saints	This is the teaching that those who are effectually called and come to Christ are preserved by the power of God through persevering faith unto holiness and glory. Usually, it is the one point which the older preachers who are not too happy about the previous four will embrace. HA Ironside taught it. It is the evidence of the changed life indication the new creation in Christ. Ultimately it is not based on what we do  - although we are to put on the whole armour etc., – but it is rooted in what God the Father decreed – God the Son did on Calvary and continues to do as our Great High Priest – and what the Holy Spirit is doing in us. There are two rivals to this doctrine. One is the raw thought that some or many of God’s elect could be eventually lost. Not merely false professors, but those who were once true professors.  Another rival to this doctrine is that of “Carnal Security” which, (sadly in some quarters) Eternity Security has become. Thus, we have many people who once “said a prayer” or “walked an isle” but haven’t produced any fruit at all or for many years resting comfortably in the perversion of a doctrine that was never designed to give such the least comfort. I believe in “Eternal Security” as defined in the doctrine of the Calvinistic Perseverance of the Saints.
Conclusion	So this is why I believe that the so called 5 points of Calvinism are indeed the gospel in its fulness. Belief of these doctrines did not hinder the great evangelists and missionaries like Spurgeon and Whitefield etc. To say that Spurgeon was a “confused Calvinist” or “a moderate Calvinist” as if he did not hold to these 5 points or did so in a confused manner is to speak in absolute ignorance. * Furthermore, if you are going to going down the line that Calvinism is “Satan’s #1 choice of wicked doctrine” – or “the spit in the face of Jesus” – or “another gospel” or merely a heresy etc., then you can hardly positively quote those men who held to it (the dead false gospellers, being, of course, cursed in Hell itself) but rather mark and avoid and reject them. Say what you want, but Fundamental non Calvinist churches are gloriously riddled with Calvinism, from the commentaries in the pastor’s study, the church bookstore, and the hymnal and role models set forth from the pulpit. Name names from your ”Baptist Heritage”  as far back as you can honestly and comprehensively  go, and I will pick you out the Calvinists e.g. Gano, Backus, Stearns, Leland.  And/or if they were not Calvinists themselves, either/and endorsed the ministry of Calvin in the most glowing of terms and worked with Calvinists in the preaching of the gospel e.g. John R. Rice, Tom Malone.

* An exhaustive reference to list to the strength of Spurgeon's 5 point Calvinism 

Book Review: The Great Debate

 

Last night I got a tweet from Dr Shonn Keels - as did a few other tweeters - informing me that he would be grateful for an honest review of his eBook The Great Debate Calvinism or Choice, along with a link to Amazon.com. I said that I would buy and read it. I have kept my word and here is the honest review as promised.

The eBook is only 24 pages long including a couple of pages about Dr Keels along with a photograph of his family and also information on other books which he has written. So there actually isn't that much actual text to read. If this was a hard copy, it would constitute a pretty small booklet. I suppose this is reflected in the low price ($1/77p). 

I must confess to some scepticism before I even read the first line. I think such is well founded. First of all, how do you deal with such a massive subject as Calvinism in less than 20 pages? This was always going to be a hit and run exercise, such as has been attempted in an earlier age by John R. Rice and Curtis Hutson - both of whom were very light hitters when it came to Calvinism. Indeed, I usually link to the webpage containing their efforts - as I do here - just to show how unafraid Calvinism is of their efforts. If you fall for their arguments, then you would fall for anything. 

Secondly, the title was loaded. (A point I made to the author in a tweet.) Calvinism OR choice? I actually believe in both and so I refuse to be forced to choose between one or the other.  

However, even with these two pretty obvious flaws, I pressed ahead with reading Dr Keels' effort. 

I pointed out in a tweet to Dr Keels that I hoped that his book would define terms. A tweet which he "liked" although liking a tweet can sometimes be a mere acknowledgement of receipt rather than anything positive. 

Unfortunately Dr Keels does not define his terms. He fails to define determinism, free agency or freewill. What do Calvinists mean by foreordained? If you just assume that it means that human freedom or the free agency of man - something we Calvinists wholeheartedly believe in - is squashed by God foreordaining things to come to pass, then you need to give serious study to the relevant chapters in Westminster Confession of Faith or one of the similar Calvinist Confessions. I pointed this out to Dr Keels in a tweet. It is obvious that he either hasn't done so, or for some reason he didn't see fit to include such vital information in his little booklet. 

The WCF chapter on the decree of God is found here.

The WCF chapter on the providence of God is found here.

The WCF chapter on the FREEWILL of man is found here.

The secret is to read them carefully, note the various important nuances that appear and reconcile them all together. This is not the stuff of a short convenient study, but the issues are massive and we should not expect anything less. 

Man is not a puppet. No Calvinist believes him to be so. Quoting non Calvinists or boldly affirming that Calvinists believe that he is simply wont do. It is mistaken at best and no one gains from the error. 

Quotes from AW Pink and others are only half the story. Why not relate the whole story? For example, AW Pink (a particularly strong Calvinist) denied that the sinner is a puppet and affirmed that the sinner was free. I quote:

"In what does the sinner's freedom consist? This question is naturally suggested by what we have just said above. The sinner is "free" in the sense of being unforced from without. God never forces the sinner to sin. But the sinner is not free to do either good or evil because an evil heart within is ever inclining him toward sin." 

Again: "The sinner is free, but free in one direction only-free to fall, free to sin. As the Word expresses it: "For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness" (Romans 6:20). The sinner is free to do as he pleases, always as he pleases (except as he is restrained by God), but his pleasure is to sin."

It is a pity that Dr Keels did not take the time to show how God in His sovereignty uses free moral agents to advance His purposes, without tramping on their morally free toes on one hand or leaving things to their whim on the other. But then, as said earlier, he has tried to cover too much ground in a totally inadequate booklet. That said Dave Hunt  - quoted several times in this booklet - took all the time in the world and still signally failed, presenting us with a crude hatchet job. 

Dr Keels claims that the doctrine of unconditional election cripples evangelism. Yet history shows this claim to be ludicrous. It certainly didn't cripple many of the great evangelists of a by gone era e.g. Whitefield, Spurgeon, Edwards or Spurgeon!  Indeed, it may be argued that this great doctrine spurred them on. What fisherman would not cast his line or drop his nets if ultimately guaranteed to be successful in his attempts to catch fish? It certainly doesn't cripple this reviewer's feeble evangelistic efforts for the reason stated. I go forth believing 100% that my labour is not in vain in the Lord or that God's word ever returns unto Him void. I do this because I see God working out His sovereign purposes whether men will hear or forebear. I do not have access to the eternal decree of God. I just simply take Him at His word that He will safely gather in every last soul and raise them up in the last day. And so so, through very feeble efforts such as mine.

Furthermore, none of the Calvinist doctrines have ever curtailed the free offer of the gospel. I cover this here in great detail with quotations from leading Calvinist theologians and preachers. The gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to every man. 

Dr Keels' use of the word "all" in his argument on the atonement is superficial. An English dictionary will come to our aid. Sometimes "all" means "all without exception." Other times, it means "all without distinction" i.e. all kinds of. Indeed the Greek word "pas" is sometimes rendered by the latter in the KJV. Furthermore, the wider "all" (without exception) is sometimes qualified by the circumstances in which it is used. If I stand in church tomorrow night and say "You are all welcome back to our house for supper," then it should not be supposed that every last man from my town who knocks my door will be fed. It was extended to all who (without exception and distinction) to all who are present in the church at the time of invite. No one is expecting me  to intend or even (in my case) be able to feed bus loads of complete strangers who somehow heard the invitation and came along. I am, of course, free to admit who I want, but the provision as originally advertised was made for the "all" of the "you" i.e. to all without exception in the actual meeting. 

Some issues are tackled with a little more depth. His argument in Romans 9 for example is plausible, although he signally fails to explain that any who damned in the Calvinist scheme are damned solely because of their sin. Unless I missed it, this extremely important qualifier never comes up and its omission is inexcusable. Dr Keel makes much of the necessity of the sinner being given the opportunity to receive salvation. Apart from the fact that the free offer of the gospel is extended to all men in Calvinism anyway, this objection logically presupposes that there could be no damnation without the Cross work of Christ. This then renders the Cross as a legal necessity instead of the gracious provision of God to undeserving sinners. Furthermore, many sinners live and die without ever hearing of the Cross even once- a fact known to God when He formulated the great plan of redemption. Sinners justly go to Hell because of their sin. Even if there had never been peace made by the blood of His Cross, God would still be all just and glorious when He said "Depart from me ye cursed..."

I am happy to report - unless (again) I failed to see it - that Dr Keel refrains from using words like heresy or Satanic or "another gospel" in relation to Calvinism as many of our critics are apt to do. 

Time is running on. I have no desire to weary the reader any further. To close: Do I recommend this book? I cannot say that I do, even for research purposes. He bit off far too much to chew in such a short space and failed in what he did manage to cover. It contains nothing new by way of argument and (as said) leaves big gaps in things that needed to be said regarding Calvinism. For any who want to explore Calvinism further, I recommend a thorough study of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the many popular books written on the subject, many of which are available free for download from www.mongerism.com

Colin Maxwell 

* CALVINIST INDEX

* PROTESTANT INDEX

* CH SPURGEON INDEX

* EVANGELISM INDEX

* HERE AND THERE INDEX

* 1 MINUTE AUDIOBOO INDEX